Worrying about using old samples and the legal ramifications...

[Dasheesh]

maybe some have a better ear then others. It's not about the output, it's about the consumer.

[Dasheesh]

Let me clarify a little. If I play a song, and someone gets inspired by it, and they use a sample of it... and it's good.... why would I complain?

You see, It's not about talent anymore, because everything has been done for you. Nobody knows what's real, and what's virtual anymore, because that's what you grew up hearing. The consumer does not care anymore. They are trying desperately to be special, and be a part of the crowd. They want to do what everyone tells them they are supposed to do.. and they will pay big money to feel special. hip hop is not modern, and "the crowd" is not latching on to it anymore. It's still underground. Don't worry about being popular, be an artist. More then likely nobody will care but your peers. Your peers will know. Nobody else gives a damn.... except the lawyers. If you make a little cash... if you get visible... expect to be hunted. Keep it underground, be an inspired artist, and nobody cares... except the people who should.

[enroe]

Nobody knows what's real, and what's virtual anymore, because that's what you grew up hearing ...

That applies to air-plays on the radio. But I do notice that an increasing group
of music listeners enjoy going to live concerts. And for this group, authenticity
is an important characteristic.

And that means: Anyone who cannot play a song live with the instrument is
"inauthentic" and is not a "real musician".

Because of the variety and the overkill of music on offer, the search for
authenticity and live musicians is so great for the listener. Those who cannot
play on guitar or piano do not belong to the circle of real musicians.

Keep it underground, be an inspired artist, and nobody cares... except the people who should.

Haja, of course you can edit in your little room completely autistoid until
the doctor comes. Completely alone and shielded from society - like a
strange gnome alone on a distant South Sea island. Whoever is happy with
it should do it.

But as soon as you have a larger audience, as soon as you make "contact"
with society, you are automatically confronted and in communication with
the big open world. And all sorts of questions arise: And one important is:
'Do you really get the title "valuable real musician" or not'?

On the topic of the thread: The lawyers of other labels are already interested
in whether the music they offer is really genuine or not whether "something
was stolen". But even more important is the general image, which is often
only really accepted as a "genuine musician". And here samples are
generally a "NoGo"!

[Dasheesh]

well, IDK about you guys, but I'm a terrible finger drummer. That takes some practice.

did you know you don"t have to write to produce a novel anymore? They make software that writes the book for you. No kidding.

[BertKoor]

The lawyers used to let you use so many seconds of sampling before it became criminal. i think it was 5-7 seconds (they might have changed that by now?) idk.

I doubt such a rule ever existed and actually used in court (the only place it really counts) but heard it being said/written often with wildly varying threshold lengths. The myth is strong on this one though.

Also 30 years ago (those were still the hiphop paradise years) you'd not get away with using for example a sample of the word "Vogue" (one syllable, doesn't get much shorter) without getting the attention of Warner Bros legal department once you start flying above the radar.

Is one clear example is enough to debunk it? Idk.


Regarding "it's not music, let alone art" : sweeping statement. As always: it depends. You need to hear it before passing any judgement, and still then art & music are subjective things where the taste of creator & consumer need to match. My garbage can be your gold.

And kids need to learn stuff by doing it, give them a break (sic). Revisit your own first steps in "real" music and compare if you dare. Not all seeds grow up to become big trees, but if you weed out all sprouts then nothing can grow tall.

[Dasheesh]

It's not about what is being made, it's about what is being consumed.

[Dasheesh]

Keep your shirt on and avoid fame = no problems.

[JeffLearman]

It's my understanding there were/are two things to look at here. The lawyers used to let you use so many seconds of sampling before it became criminal.

Just for the record, copyright infringement isn't criminal, it's civil. (There are exceptions due to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, that concern piracy and hacking copyright protection mechanisms, but that's not what we're talking about here.)

If you violate a copyright, the cops won't come for you, but the copyright-owning party's lawyers might.

There is or was a provision in US copyright law allowing copying if the result substantially changes the original in form or context. That would seem to cover a lot of hip-hop cases. But either that got watered down by later laws or the DMCA, or perhaps courts are just allowing less leeway about the use of samples these days.

(The courts are allowing WAY less leeway in traditional copyright violation suits, leading to some pretty wrong-headed awards, and if things continue that way, we won't be able to make any new music without violating someone's copyright. But that's another matter entirely.)

[hoxclab]

nowadays, far too many people try to run before they can walk, worrying endlessly about this or that legal aspect of sampling.

Perhaps they simply have morals.

Yes, because we know laws are the epitome of morality.

[ghettosynth]

This always gets a lot of confusing posts on KVR, but Bertkoor is right, there never was a "rule" that allowed for any amount of time that constituted a legal use of a copyrighted work. However, before 2005, there was a reasonable assumption that de minimus applied in audio sampling as it does in virtually everything else subject to copyright. In 2005 the courts issued a ruling that included a bright line rule for samples, thus ruling out any de minimus exceptions. This ruling included the famous line "if you want to sample, get a license."

In 2005, the Sixth Circuit held in Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films that the de minimis exception does not exist in the context of digital sound sampling. Therefore, the court held, all unlicensed sampling of copyrighted digital sound recordings is completely prohibited, no matter how short or minimal the sample.

IANAL, but, this always seemed to me that it would, at some point, be challenged. It's simply not tenable and is essentially equivalent to the idea that words, or even letters, could be subject to copyright.

There has been some pushback on this from the courts:

Eleven years later, in 2016, the Ninth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion, holding that a de minimis exception does exist in the context of digital sound sampling. Therefore, unlicensed sampling of copyrighted digital sound recordings does not constitute copyright infringement if the average audience would not recognize the appropriation. While the Ninth Circuit’s opinion is persuasive in its legal analysis, which focuses heavily on congressional intent, the average audience test for de minimis use that follows from its ruling creates certain significant problems that do not exist under the Sixth Circuit’s bright-line rule prohibiting all unlicensed sampling.

In essence, the bright line rule unburdened the courts from dealing with the question regarding what is infringement and what isn't. Yay, less work, boo, unnecessary and unreasonable restrictions for the populace. At any rate, the common belief on KVR that you have to ask the original author for permission for anything is based in some truth, some mythology, and some wishful thinking. Clear samples if you're going to release them, but the gravy train of extracting huge sums for old tat that nobody has cared about for decades might be pulling into the slow lane over the coming decades.

https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_l ... 95/iss1/9/

[Teksonik]

nowadays, far too many people try to run before they can walk, worrying endlessly about this or that legal aspect of sampling.

Perhaps they simply have morals.

Yes, because we know laws are the epitome of morality.

I don't need a law to tell me stealing someone else's work is immoral.

To disrespect the intellectual property rights of others while being on a website dedicated to the creation of intellectual property is ironic but I suppose it's all part of the "everything should be free except the work I do" mentality of the day.

[hoxclab]

nowadays, far too many people try to run before they can walk, worrying endlessly about this or that legal aspect of sampling.

Perhaps they simply have morals.

Yes, because we know laws are the epitome of morality.

I don't need a law to tell me stealing someone else's work is immoral.

To disrespect the intellectual property rights of others while being on a website dedicated to the creation of intellectual property is ironic but I suppose it's all part of the "everything should be free except the work I do" mentality of the day.

Others being largely property holders that don’t respect the artists they keep enslaved and out of owning their own work, you’re a hoot bro.

[Passing Bye]

It's 2021, you can pretty much have whole virtual studio software vise for free, use it to make your art, compose something, invent something new, sampling old school records was old 2 decades ago, move on, make something new and interesting.

[Dasheesh]

you guys know that every song has been made before right? yeah, that "hit song" you have been working on? it's been done... many, many times before. They just didn't have lawyers.

[Dasheesh]

I think we are at a place where we just need to outlaw music as well. just add it to the pile of shit we are not allowed to do anymore.